Slashdot Mirror

We've successfully brought back indentured servitude. This will go nicely with those Debtors Prisons we bought back years ago and the modern slavery this is prison labor.

Can't work in America. I can't speak to other countries.

It's not that it wouldn't be of benefit to the general population, but that's not a criteria anyone in any level of power will even consider as modestly important. What's important is continuing the war on drugs because it feeds the for profit prison system. And that for profit prison system needs a steady stream of non-violent inmates to keep running costs low and prove the necessity of every increased capacity.

Well, according to the ACLU: "...for-profit companies were responsible for approximately 7 percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal prisoners in 2015 (the most recent numbers currently available)".

While that seems to start being a little high on the Federal side, it doesn't seem to be really THAT high of a number that everyone seems to keep touting as a reason to keep funneling people into the prison system.

While I agree it could put pressure on the system to try to fund itself, it doesn't appear to be as much of a central problem to legalizing drugs as some would have you think.

While I'm not "the right", I will say that *real* tolerance absolutely demands it:

https://www.aclu.org/other/acl...

The problem here is that the leftists have decided that anybody right of Bernie Sanders is a hateful Nazi, so Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos are disinvited from speaking. They're both Jews, in case you're wondering.

If we let them keep nazis and the KKK from marching, what we end up with is conservative Jews being discriminated against. I'll take the ACLU's side on this one.

The NSA stopped spying on US citizens
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/...
However, https://www.aclu.org/blog/nati...

And https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

Now who really thinks any government that spent a lot of taxpayer money to build spying capabilities on its taxpayers is going to stop it?

And if you think that is bad, lets put it in perspective. AI weaponry.... What's ethics? to those who are addicted to think, "if we don't do it someone else will and put us at a disadvantage"

Copyright governs your ability to distribute copies of other people's work. There's no distribution going on here, so permission of the copyright holder (photographer) was not needed.

It might be governed by personality rights - your right to control how your image is used. You could argue the model's consent is needed before using their facial geometry. But personality rights are generally concerned with control over how others perceive your image. Since there's no public perception or exploitation here, it would be an uphill argument.

AFAIK, there is no basis for prohibiting people from using things you make publicly available (your face every time you walk out in public, unless you wear a burka) to train computer algorithms. Photographers and the press have worked pretty hard to enshrine their right to record images of people in public places. If we want there to be restrictions of using images of people in public places, it'll need to be a new law.

You Americans (and Brits I might add) are already done like dinner.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/priv...

As bad as that is; it isn't the government, which was the focus of this, it is private enterprise. I definitely don't approve of private companies using facial recognition. ESPECIALLY, if they share it. If the information remains in house that isn't good, if they share it with one another, that's a whole other level of bad.

I can definitely see the appeal to stores of using this.

Go ahead and explain my "naivete"

They are already using it at malls up here in the relative middle of nowhere.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...

You Americans (and Brits I might add) are already done like dinner.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/priv...

https://www.aclu.org/gallery/m...

Are you sure Trump hasn't "spied on them"?

How the Justice Department's Seizure of a Reporter's Email Records Subverts the Free Press

And can you explain to me why you think anything Trump does can be excused with a "But Obama"?

Some of us voted against both of them.

It emerged late Thursday that the Justice Department had secretly seized years of email and phone records of a New York Times reporter in connection with a leak investigation. This marks a clear escalation of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate journalists and their sources. In doing so, it seems that the Justice Department may have violated its own policies for obtaining reporters’ communications — strict standards that are in place because of the importance the Constitution places on freedom of the press.

Citizens United did not declare that corporations are people.
It made the obvious ruling that people do not lose the basic human rights, as guaranteed in the US Constitution, just because they choose to cooperate by forming a corporation. That's why the ACLU supports the Citizens United ruling.

What happened here is that Amazon paid a bunch of money out in ways that counted as tax credits (such as R&D, employee bonuses, etc), plus carried over losses from previous years.

Incidentally, since all corporate taxes as paid for by the consumer anyway, why do you want to punish the people that buy stuff from Amazon? Most people ranting about "Mega-Corp"s want to punish the rich, not the poor and the middle class. And the rich? They don't use Amazon to buy stuff.

Authoritarianism is actually a problem now at the ACLU:

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...

As one example. Hopefully he'll be able to impact the organization from within. It's a shame, because at one time they seemed like a principled civil rights defender:

https://www.aclu.org/other/acl...

Now, they're willing to throw due-process under the bus for college-aged men while spewing vile looney left-wing talking points.

Because Citizen's United didn't declare that businesses are people.

Citizen's United declared that when people cooperate to speak, such as by pooling money to purchase expensive TV advertisements or air movies, they do not lose their rights to speech just because they are acting collectively. This is why the ACLU supported Citizen's United - because otherwise, broad speech is restricted to the very wealthy, those few that can afford multi-million dollar ad buys.

Bots are not people. They are the tools that people use to spread their message, which means that people do not lose their free speech rights just because they use tools. Those tools, however, do not have speech rights.

Bill you just conflated "hate speech" = a crime the ACLU does not legally support - with - "unpopular speech" by conservative (bigots) on campuses

No I didn't. Both "hate speech" and "unpopular speech" are constitutionally protected, and the ACLU supports your right to speak either.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about "hate". What it does say is "no law" abridging speech.

They are not the same thing

Yes they are. Hate speech is only illegal if it is also unpopular. Nobody is going to arrest you for saying "I hate Nazis", because that is a popular viewpoint.

Probably the most odious example of hate speech was the Nazi march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. The ACLU defended their right to march and speak.

As long as it's not hate speech or speech that hurts someone's feelings.

Bullcrap. From their own website: The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.

Next time take a few seconds to check your facts before posting ignorant garbage.

The ACLU absolutely does support actual free speech, but unfortunately for nazi faggots, that doesn't include their illegal and unsupportable hate screech

Bullcrap. The ACLU most certainly does defend hate speech, and they have specifically defended Nazis.

They are not the hypocrites that you claim they are.

The ACLU absolutely does support actual free speech, but unfortunately for nazi faggots, that doesn't include their illegal and unsupportable hate screech

Bullcrap. The ACLU most certainly does defend hate speech, and they have specifically defended Nazis.

They are not the hypocrites that you claim they are.

It feels like it should be unconstitutional

An open records group (Public.Resources.Org) bought a copy of the annotated code of Georgia and published it online (think SciHub, but for law.) They got sued by the group that claimed to own the copyright. They took it to court, and, last month, won their court case The Supreme Court may overrule the Appeals Court, but it's now at that level (and doesn't seem likely).

From my understanding, the case hinges on the fact that the judges and lawmakers are actually doing work for hire on behalf of the people, who would be the ones to own the copyright. Quotes in the articles are more elegantly phrased.

I don't recall my computer processes having constitutional rights

There is nothing in the Constitution against tracking your car's movements on a public road either.

But I'm not talking about rights per se, but about whether or not such surveillance make sense at all. That is, whether the costs (the time and money, leaving the morals aside) of it justify the benefits.

What TFA is arguing for is a layer of verifications performed by the program's execution environment, checking its every move.

The checks aren't free — they make everything a little slower and/or consuming more resources (such as RAM). Whether that slow-down is worth the increased safety may be subject to debate...

But the parallels with human lives are inescapable. The checks argued for are no different from the much-denounced police practices, such as "stop-and-frisk", tracking citizens' identifications, and movements — and the arguments for and against them are much the same...

What TFA is arguing for is a layer of verifications performed by the program's execution environment, checking its every move.

The checks aren't free — they make everything a little slower and/or consuming more resources (such as RAM). Whether that slow-down is worth the increased safety may be subject to debate...

But the parallels with human lives are inescapable. The checks argued for are no different from the much-denounced police practices, such as "stop-and-frisk", tracking citizens' identifications, and movements — and the arguments for and against them are much the same...

Keep in mind that 14-year-old girls have gotten in legal trouble for sending nudes of themselves.

Se yes, if he's gotten pictures of people under 18 naked, he's gonna be charged with child porn.

Well, you are right Punks aren't a protected class. That's why Brian's killer got off on a manslaughter charge. It's apparently okay to kill poor or middle class white kids. The ACLU has filed civil lawsuits (including class-action cases) in situations where the criminal case wasn't a success. That's a fact, jack. So, don't act all stupid like there is nothing they could/should do. They didn't, despite the case having implications straight outta their creed. So much for "defending liberty". In fact, you are the one who sounds confused. The ALCU isn't the SPLC, they don't specifically go after racists. So, I'm not sure why you even brought that up since it's not even relevant. In the case where the cops were spraying mace on 200 people at once, I'm pretty sure video and audio evidence from both inside and outside of the areas where it took place would have helped at lot with any misunderstandings about alcohol (which wasn't served at those underage shows). I'm also pretty sure it's against folks' civil liberties to be maced when they are standing inside a building listening to a band. That action also endangered a shitton of people who could have caused a stampede. Hard to exercise your civil liberties when you are dead, eh? It's also hard to fight city hall (hello? ACLU?). My understanding is that ACLU wasn't setup for social justice, it was setup to combat attacks on liberty. So, the cops can turn into jackboots or the system thwarts your attempt at justice can just stick around like it is, hey at least we have the ALCU to look out for "protected groups" like LGBTQIAPK folks, though. Whew!

https://www.kansas.com/news/po... [kansas.com]

"Another 34 were identified by the Sedgwick County Election Office when staff attended naturalization ceremonies to register new citizens and discovered some were already registered."

If you read your link, you will notice that Kris Kobach, who is anything but a neutral observer, offers ZERO EVIDENCE that these things happened, but assures us that they did. Let's see...can we think of any other instances where Kobach lied or whether he had an incentive to do so?

https://slate.com/news-and-pol...

https://www.kansascity.com/new...

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voti...

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

Here's even more recent news about Kris Kobach lying in order to enrich himself at the expense of a bunch of small towns by selling them on a non-existent "immigrant crisis".

https://splinternews.com/kris-...

https://www.propublica.org/art...

Are you american?

if so you should be aware of the 100 mile excluson zone as well : https://www.aclu.org/other/con...

So you not only dont have "rights" AT the border, but you have limited rights for 100 miles into the country as well.

What malarky is this? Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt. It says so right there, and there are no clauses based on locality.

Perhaps you hadn't heard, but the people that Americans choose as their lords and masters believe that "the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper". (Google it. One of the head numpties voiced the sentiment in public a decade or so back.)

The powers-that-be have created a constitution-free zone that proves the piece-of-paper statement within 100 miles of the US border. ACLU

"Land of the free." Heh. It's all part of the brainwashing.

Yea, if you're flying domestically, you shouldn't allow anyone to search your laptop. Period.

Bzzzzttt! Wrong! 2/3 of U.S. population live in the Border Zone. I agree that you shouldn't let them search your laptop, but they'll do it anyways. Your full disk encryption is the full-proof way of keeping your information private. And losing your ticket money is sad, but true. I'd like that to go to the courts for a decision.

>They can stop any vehicle in a "border zone" and search it without probable cause.

If you meant they can legally, then you're incorrect.

Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status.

The same rules for probable cause, and warrant still apply to the boarder patrol in this area, this zone is simply an area they are allowed to operate. Not allowed to pull over cars without cause, but are allowed checkpoints that force everyone to stop briefly, similar to a police DUI checkpoint.

> So I really doubt that using publicly available information

No, this isn't publicly available information. Exactly the opposite, it is privately held information, taken from the public.

This is about the federal government conducting surveillance, by collecting data on everyone without first having evidence of a crime.
It is unconstitutional for law enforcement people to collect this data, but not (under federal law) illegal for a private company to do it.ACLU should be allowed to verify this.

According to this article it isn't illegal and the ACLU knows it. They are trying to have it made illegal
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blot...

Here is the linked ACLU report
https://www.aclu.org/files/ass...

The fallacious logic I repeated is YOURS. *YOU* said "if they didn't make obscene profits it wouldn't be contentious".

No you didn't. You reversed my non-commutative argument which is the logical fallacy. My original one was just fine.

Your proof that they must make obscene profits is that they are contentious.

No that's not how the English language works. The statement I made makes absolutely no claims about the nature of profits at all.

We can see from the example of abortion doctors and many, many other things that contention does not in any way prove or imply anything at all about profits.

This I completely agree with, but it is also completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything we have said so far other than being an example of a logical fallacy against the topic we are discussing.

You then imply that bail bonds "target the poor" which is factually false - bondsmen require proof that the purchaser can pay the insured amount.

The ability for someone to repay a loan has nothing to do with how rich or poor they are.
You're on fire! This is another false cause fallacy.

They prefer to work with people who have money

If they did so they wouldn't be working in field that statistically is made up predominantly of poor people and minority groups. To claim that this is factually false, show me statistics where the PIC isn't entirely skewed towards poor and minority groups. Here's some bedtime reading: https://www.aclu.org/sites/def... Yes it's 64 pages but there's a lot of pictures.

Liar.
Citizens United said nothing about "corporations are people". It said that people have the right to free speech, and that right doesn't go away when they cooperate with each other, or when they pool resources.

Look, when the ACLU says that Citizens United was a good ruling, you've really got to question why you oppose that.

TFA notes this as well. This is an area where I say the ACLU is wrong, if their cause has a good case then they can make an arrangement with the service provider rather they flaunt a right to 'break the rules'.

You should read the news from the original ACLU one. Slashdot shouldn't use the current link to a blogger anyway...

I don't see in the actual lawsuit anything about swiping collected data, nor is the suit suggesting accessing website data other than through the normal access a person typing at a keyboard using the site in a normal way would do. In other words, it isn't about mass data grabbing from servers behind the web site.
What the complaint is covering is very narrowly defined behavior.

Here is the actual ACLU Sandvig v. Lynch - Complaint
https://www.aclu.org/legal-doc...

It's about violating TOS access to websites that forbid using dummy accounts, bots to do testing, scraping (saving screenshots in this case), or violating TOS with non-disparagement clauses.
The complaint says that on-line access that may violate a TOS should not be covered under the CFAA, and that the penalties are far too harsh.

Here's what they're talking about: Researchers want use dummy accounts with the names of people that appear to be some minority group, so that they can see if that group is being discriminated against. As an example, AirBNB, VRBO and such like are prime examples of where that sort of discrimination is in play. Many sites require real names, and non-disparagement clauses would obviously be violated if the research turned up anything.

I especially object to non-disparagement clauses in sites that have an open interface to the public, and although I think that requiring real names is a valid stipulation to use a website, I cannot support that using an alias is a criminal act. The website has the option of cancelling your account if they don't like you much in the same way that the mall can kick you out for not wearing shoes.

Yes I do. When I first wondered if it would be possible to do such a thing I did some searching and found the following 2 posts from someone who had puttered around with it some:
post 1
post 2
My takeaway from that is that he was gong for more of a flare effect which he did sort of achieve but only with modifying the plate which would likely result in other legal issues. In the tests he did he was still operating in the 10s of watts range which isn't that much power. Instead my thought would be to throw the exposure off of the camera and massively underexpose the plate. To do this you would need to have a draw in the 100s of watts and have it be over a larger area near the plate. Also the LEDs to use looks to be these ones. Working in IR also has the advantage that many states have resigned their license plates so that they are easier to read in the IR spectrum as the cameras used for ALPRs are IR cameras. Also keep in mind that covering your license plate with anything may be illegal in your state as it is in Minnesota and that there may be vehicle illumination laws which apply but that doesn't appear to be the case in MN as they only cover visible light. But from what I can tell pumping out half a KW of IR in front of and behind your car in MN isn't illegal (IANAL) so long as the device doing it doesn't cover the license plate.

Absolutely:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/crim...

Prove it. When did Trump oppose free speech?

Here's a list for you: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free...

Some highlights:
Tasked his former chief of staff with looking into changing the country’s libel laws.
Reportedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey to jail reporters who publish classified information.
Said it is “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write” in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Threatened to cancel the broadcast licenses of media companies that offer negative coverage of him.
Threatened to change libel laws to make it easier to sue publishers and news organizations following the release of an unflattering book.
Threatened legal action against a journalist and publisher over a book that includes critical statements about him.
When the father of a slain Muslim American soldier criticized Trump in a speech during the Democratic National Convention, Trump said the father “has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution.”

And, his own words:
"“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”"

Just because there are checks and balances that have kept Trump from destroying free speech doesn't mean he hasn't tried.

Two-thirds of Americans live within 100 miles of a border.

Including the entire states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Hawaii, and virtually all of Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and most of inhabited California.

And Washington DC in its entirety, but that's not a state.

This may not include a sliver of Vermont, though I doubt TSA will let the fly fishers off so easily.

Homeland Security defines "the border" as anywhere within 100 miles of any border or shoreline. . .

https://www.aclu.org/know-your...

Not this Reagan myth again. The ACLU is what is responsible for shutting down the mental health system, starting with cases in the 1970s. They're quite proud of it, for some reason. Apparently having crazy people die on the streets from drugs and exposure is better than having them well-fed, sheltered, and medicated.

They're proud of it for a few reasons. We have a long history in the US of involuntarily committing non-crazy people who happen to be "different." Gay folks, radicals, imbeciles, and people who are otherwise inconvenient, like rape victims. Care was horrible, and people who had committed no crimes were subject to horrible tortures to try to "fix" their condition. If you're not a physical danger to others in society, there is no constitutionally-justifiable reason to keep someone in a sanitarium against their will.

Not this Reagan myth again. The ACLU is what is responsible for shutting down the mental health system, starting with cases in the 1970s. They're quite proud of it, for some reason. Apparently having crazy people die on the streets from drugs and exposure is better than having them well-fed, sheltered, and medicated.

The fact that you repeat this lie, much less get modded to +5, just shows how ignorant people are.

FFS, the frickin' ACLU supports Citizen's United because they understand that people do not lose their right to free speech just because they cooperate in groups.
Nowhere did the ruling state that "money is speech" or that "corporations are people". Your entire premise is false.

People are people, whether they speak as individuals or as groups. Money is not speech, but shutting down someone else's speech by restricting their access to money is no different than preventing them from speaking in the first place.

The age of "racist drug policy" is long gone;

False.

the urge to ban substances is based on authoritarianism and dogooderism.

And it disproportionately targets blacks and other minorities (but especially blacks.)

Accusing people of racism where none exists weakens your case and makes you look like a fool.

Pretending racism doesn't exist where it totally does exist weakens your case and makes you look like a white supremacist.

You are horribly misinformed.

Please do not vote. Our government is in its horrible state because of people like you - and stupid people voting Republican. And Evangelical Christian morons - well, all Evangelicals are morons.

Even the link that you provided (and every other link I can find) says that they did not refuse service to the couple on the grounds that they were gay, but rather they would not provide the couple with a specifically requested service (baking a cake for a same sex wedding) - a service they would not provide to anyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Nope. They admitted they would bake cakes for anyone not having a same-sex marriage. That means they were expressly denying service based on the sexuality.

In fact, your equivocating "It's only their belief in not baking same-sex wedding cakes" was expressly discussed in at least one of the orders themselves:

There is no dispute that Respondents are “persons” and that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the law.There is also no dispute that Respondents refused to provide a cake to Complainants for their 2See 1, ch. 61, Laws of 1895, providing that “all persons” shall be entitled to the “equal enjoyment” of “places of public accommodation and amusement.” Respondents, however,argue that the refusaldoes not violate 24-34-601(2) because it was due to theiro bjection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’argument as a distinction without a difference.The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants.Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings.Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.

Sorry dude, but your argument has already been considered and rejected.

And yet here you are, advocating that people be discriminated against by the state.

I already stated that sometimes asserting those rights will occasionally inconvenience people. Did you miss it?

Show specifically from the statement of facts where it says the bakers provided specially themed cakes for same sex weddings in the past.

I'd rather point this out to you:

Nor is the ALJ persuaded by Respondents’ argument that theyshould not be compelled to recognize same-sex marriagesbecause Colorado does not do so. Although Respondents are correct that Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriage, that fact does not excuse discrimination based upon sexual orientation.At oral argument, Respondents candidly acknowledged that theywould also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couplefor a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by Colorado law.4Because Respondents’ objection goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage.Of course, nothing in 24-34-601(2) compels Respondents to recognize the legality of a same-sex wedding or to endorse such weddings. The law simply requires that Respondents and other actors in the marketplace serve same-sexcouples in exactly the same way theywould serve heterosexual ones.Having rejected Respondents’ arguments to the contrary, the ALJ concludes that the undispu

Like this? https://www.aclu.org/issues/cr...

Immigration law is just that - law.

Human-made Laws are not just that, they are policies, preferences and agenda, made from the mere persuasion, into coercion.

They are nothing sacred, nothing absolute, as ultimately they are human action, and just that.

Your desire to hold the law forth as if it were anything else, is a mistaken application of a false principle, and ultimately antithetical to any actual ideal.

Enforcing the law is the job of the executive branch.

And yet jobs can be done in service to policies, preferences and agenda, as was long denounced against the prior occupant of the White House, now we cannot even have suspicions and doubts about the current, is that it?

I see nothing wrong with enforcing the laws on the books.

Oh? Never heard of the Declaration of Independence? It was a recounting of the offenses of enforcement. And even after that, a certain John Addams was much criticized for his laws, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Then you add in things like the Fugitive Slave Laws, the Black Codes, the Indian Removal Act, and the Civilization Fund Act.

Sorry, but your inability to see the wrong in enforcement the law, well, even Abe Lincoln knew better. And I didn't even have to go outside the United States. Germany, Russia, England, South Africa, Japan, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, France, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, and the Vatican would offer a lot more.

If you don't like the law - work with your congresscritter to change the law.

Why am I limited to that? Do you hold all others to the same standard? And how am I supposed to do that? You do know that Congress is poorly regarded for its lack of representative nature now, for a variety of reasons.

And that isn't even counting the impediment that is preventing any resolution, the long-derided obstructionism by House and Senate leadership through their own extra-constitutional policies and practices.

For businesses claiming a "shortage of talent" - I want to ask one question: How many internships and apprenticeships have you sponsored? I'm not talking about running-for-coffee internships. I'm talking about partnering with one or two local engineering colleges, taking a couple of prospective grads and training them to do the highly skilled work that you want done.

Too many businesses complain about a talent shortage, do nothing to solve the problem, and then ask for Government to solve the problem for them.

Except in this case, they aren't asking the government to solve the problem for them. They're asking for the Government to stop being an impediment to them. To get out of the way. Yet it insists on being involved. In fact, they can't even get the Government to stop being a mess when it comes to college in general.

You may like (or not like) German immigration policy - but you can not also ignore the fact that Germany integrates training for their skilled workforce into the education of that workforce - and the on-the-job training is done by the industries that need the talent.

Ok, so? You want these companies to move to Germany then?

If you aren't doing anything to try and fix the problem, you have no right to complain about it.

And you get to define that to suit your own narrative? Is that it?

Sure

The access information will be available via supeona to any law enforcement agency that desires it. Keyless entry to your dwelling for sneak and peak (see: https://www.aclu.org/other/how... ), as well as any other entity that amazon wishes to cooperate with without warrant - national security letter, anyone?

ACLU still protects the rights of Nazi's, along with everyone else. Free speech is not a privilege.

That is patently false.

Become a member today at https://action.aclu.org/secure...

AI notices patterns that detect cancer. Woot! AI notices patterns that determines crime rates amongst certain population groups! Fuq no.

Hey, cool dog whistle, bro!

Any algorithm (including AI and machine learning based algorithms) is only as good as the data you feed it. You can cite crime statistics for "certain populations", and to you, that looks like evidence for your shitty racist agenda. To me, it look a lot like evidence of the systemic over-policing and disproportional enforcement on those same communities.

Example:

Marijuana use is roughly equal among Blacks and whites, yet Blacks are 3.73 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

Mine that data, and your algorithm will likely you that drug-related crimes are significantly higher for Black people. It's impossible to remove the inherent systemic bias from those numbers, though, and, as such, they're pretty much worthless.